A. The nature of the provisions of each subparagraph of paragraph 1 of the General Rules of Inheritance Tax Basic

(b) A case where the appraised value of an individual certified appraiser is recognized as the market value at the time of commencing the inheritance.

A. Each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 190) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 199) is merely an example of the representative cases that can be seen as the market price of inherited property, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the market price is difficult to be calculated immediately because it does not fall under any of the following subparagraphs.

(b) A case where the appraised value of an individual certified appraiser is recognized as the market value at the time of commencing the inheritance.

Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2509 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1688), 90Nu6309 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 656), 90Nu8459 delivered on April 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1398), 90Nu9586 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong191, 1670), 92Nu897 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong193, 1414)

Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu12355 delivered on November 28, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Although it is possible to calculate the value of inherited property at the time of the commencement of inheritance tax, if the inheritance tax was imposed by evaluating the value of inherited property according to the supplementary assessment method as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, it is unlawful and difficult to calculate the market price, and the burden of proving that there was no choice but to select a supplementary assessment method due to the difficulty in calculating the market price is against the tax authority responsible for proving and proving the legality of the taxation. In addition, the market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance refers to the exchange value in principle, but the concept includes the value appraised in an objective and reasonable manner in lieu of the market price, and the general rule of the inheritance tax is merely a guideline on the performance of affairs inside the national tax administrative agency, and there is no legal binding force on the court or the general public. Furthermore, each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 190; Presidential Decree No. 22193, Dec. 39, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant assessed the value of the real estate at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, based on the appraised value according to the appraisal method stipulated in Article 5 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, and there was no evidence to find that the above supplementary appraisal method had been forced due to the difficulty in calculating the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and there was no error of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the court below's judgment is just, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is acceptable that the court below recognized the amount calculated by the plaintiffs at the time of the commencement of the inheritance tax of this case as the legitimate market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance tax of this case, and Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act can only be deemed an appraisal company, while the appraisal of the real estate for the imposition or collection of taxes can not be determined by the market price.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)